Whilst directing an eight table, four session, multiple teams, club tournament event, I was about to call for a move when I was summoned to a table where the two sides were disputing whether a two Hearts doubled contract was one down or two down. When I arrived at the table, all four players had their cards faced upwards and in order, except for North’s last five cards. As I went through the tricks, it was discovered that South (a defender) had revoked on the sixth trick. He won the revoke trick and his side had also won subsequent tricks. At this stage, the actual number of tricks won became somewhat academic because if the penalty for the revoke is applied, the contract makes and that is a huge enough swing. (Please bear in mind the usual problems of the playing director. All other players are pushing for the game to continue). At this stage I advised all four players that I need to investigate whether the revoke penalty is to be applied in this case and if so, the result will be contract making exactly. This was accepted by all four players. Naturally, the offending side are arguing that since nobody noticed the revoke until the investigation of quitted tricks with all cards now showing, the non offending side do not have a right for a penalty. Had it not been for the dispute, they would have settled for one down and moved on. My question is this. Neither player from the non offending side noticed the revoke, or indeed would have noticed it had it not been for this enquiry. The fact that a player had revoked surfaced as I was going through the quitted tricks. Had it not been for this problem, by now, I would have called for a move and it would have been too late for declarer or his partner to claim the revoke. Law 64B5 clearly says that “there is no rectification ...... if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended”. So, strictly according to the letter of the law, in this case, the penalty should be applied. But was such a situation envisaged?
